In a research article in Journalism Practice, Simone Benazzo, Florence Le Cam, David Domingo, and Marie Fierens look at Germany, Croatia, and North Macedonia and analyse Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) as instruments for media capture. SLAPPs undermine not only individual journalists but the sustainability, independence, and impact of the media ecosystems journalism funders seek to strengthen.
SLAPPs are legal actions used to harass or intimidate people who speak on matters of public interest. Because they rely on legal tools rather than open threats or violence, they are often hard for journalists to fight. While countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia have had laws against SLAPPs for years, Europe has only recently taken steps in this direction following pressure from civil society and media groups.
Most academic work has focused on the legal structures that enable SLAPPs and on legal reforms that could stop them. Fewer studies have looked at their wider effects. The authors’ research seeks to understand the complexity of SLAPPs in Europe and the range of reactions to them. They view SLAPPs as a form of media capture, where governments or political and business interests try to control the media. In this sense, SLAPPs can contribute to autocratisation, a process in which countries become more autocratic even if they are still considered democracies.
They examined Germany, Croatia, and North Macedonia, three democracies with different recent trends in autocratisation and different levels of SLAPP activity. Through interviews and focus groups with journalists, lawyers, and activists, the authors explored the actors involved and the strategies they use. Their analysis shows five key dimensions of this struggle: juridical, political, professional, financial, and social.
Looking at the juridical dimension, focus group participants saw SLAPPs as an abuse of the court system that restricts freedom of expression. The independence of the judiciary influenced how often SLAPPs occurred. In Croatia, where trust in judicial independence is low, SLAPPs are frequent, and some judges even file cases against journalists. In Germany, the courts generally defend press freedom, but participants warned that this could create complacency and allow cases to go unnoticed. In North Macedonia, past SLAPPs were marked by arbitrary decisions before defamation was decriminalised. Today, judges tend to protect journalists, partly due to training and pressure from professional associations. Across countries, participants debated whether training judges is enough, noting that the main issue is sometimes not knowledge but attitudes towards journalism.
Political actors also play a central role in shaping SLAPPs. In Croatia, both national and local politicians often initiate lawsuits, supported by close ties with judges. In North Macedonia, the fall of the autocratic government in 2017 reduced SLAPPs, though other political pressures remain. Regulatory bodies and major broadcasters still reflect older power structures. In Germany, SLAPPs by politicians are less common, but the rise of the AfD party has increased hostility towards the press, leading to long and costly disputes. Some focus group participants argued that these pressures shape the wider public sphere. In North Macedonia, joint declarations between political and media actors have been used as a tool to prevent legal action against journalists.
Professional bodies play an important role in resisting SLAPPs. Journalists’ associations in all three countries collect data, offer support, and advocate for better protection. Croatian associations run rapid-response systems and annual surveys. North Macedonia’s association works to secure free legal aid and contributes to national and international monitoring tools. In Germany, focus group participants stressed self-regulation and the need for the profession to defend itself. Press councils, however, were seen as limited in their ability to help, except in North Macedonia where their opinions influence court cases. External actors, such as European media organisations, also support journalists through training, advocacy, and insurance schemes.
SLAPPs also have severe financial consequences. In Croatia, high damages and “serial plaintiffs” place heavy burdens on journalists and media outlets. Some lawsuits appear motivated by profit rather than reputation. Law firms also benefit by specialising in these cases. In North Macedonia, legal reforms have reduced fines, easing some pressure. Participants described how SLAPPs can drain resources, force media into crowdfunding, or even bankrupt people. This financial fear can lead to self-censorship, as editors may stop investigations to avoid costly cases. In Germany, some in the focus group suggested joint funds as a way to help journalists face legal costs.
Public awareness of SLAPPs is low in all three countries. Many people distrust journalists, which weakens sympathy for those targeted. Focus group participants in Croatia and North Macedonia described widespread suspicion of the media, while German participants stressed the need to report on SLAPPs openly to build understanding. Awareness campaigns were seen as essential, led by civil society or journalists’ associations. Croatian participants felt that public knowledge had improved thanks to their efforts, though others in Germany and North Macedonia were less optimistic.
The authors created a multi-dimensional model to show the links among all five dimensions. Journalists and media sit at the centre, while political actors, business figures, and legal actors use SLAPPs to pressure or silence them. The model also highlights how different forms of media capture connect to the wider processes of autocratisation.
The three countries studied show important differences. In all of them, politicians have filed SLAPPs, but only in Croatia and North Macedonia did these cases come from politicians close to the ruling parties. In these contexts, SLAPPs act as tools of autocratisation, used by those in power to weaken dissent. In Germany, the rise of the AfD suggests that similar pressures may appear in the future. Another striking finding concerns Croatia, where some judges themselves use SLAPPs. This shows how legal actors can sometimes reinforce autocratising trends instead of blocking them. The findings also confirm that financial actors, including law firms that specialise in SLAPPs, now play a major role.
The study also highlights that SLAPPs can be resisted. Journalists, professional groups, civil society, and some judges use different strategies, such as public awareness, legal support, and political pressure. These efforts differ from country to country and depend on local power relations, resources, and traditions of cooperation.
Benazzo, S., Le Cam, F., Domingo, D., & Fierens, M. (2025). Journalism Facing Autocratization: Analyzing Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) as Instruments for Media Capture. Journalism Practice, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2025.2598376
In a research article published in Digital Journalism, Bernadette Uth shows that audiences in Germany are rather reserved when it comes to using participatory features in journalism, despite believing that they are an important element in building trust. These findings show that even modest investments in audience engagement can strengthen trust and loyalty, key foundations for the long-term sustainability and public value of independent media.
Journalism has long relied on sales and advertising. In recent years, this model has become harder to sustain, therefore, many newsrooms now look for new ways to earn money and keep their audiences. One growing approach is to focus on a smaller group of loyal readers rather than the general public.
Digital media have changed what audiences expect from news. People can now respond to stories, share their views, or take part in discussions. Researchers have begun to study how users engage with these options, but most work has focused on simple actions such as liking or sharing articles. We still know little about deeper forms of engagement, such as taking part in the reporting process or offering ideas and feedback. This paper, however, introduces a way to classify digital engagement based on how much involvement it requires. It uses survey data from Germany to explore which engagement options people use and how important they find them, and examines how these perceptions relate to trust in journalism.
Trust is vital for journalism in democratic societies. Without it, audiences may avoid the news or question its purpose. Studies show that trust is shaped by personal experiences, emotions, and whether people feel represented. Many groups say they do not feel heard by the media, which has led to calls for closer and more open relationships between journalists and the public. Yet levels of trust vary, and some groups remain deeply sceptical. Local journalism often enjoys higher trust than national outlets, partly due to closer contact with communities.
Audience engagement is often seen as a promising way to strengthen trust, but actual participation remains low. This paper therefore explores how often people use various options, how important they find them, and whether seeing journalism as open and audience-focused is linked to greater trust.
As a first step, the author looked at how people use different ways to take part in digital journalism. Overall, all options are used, but to very different degrees. Simple actions, including user comments, liking or sharing articles, or joining quick polls, are the most common. Options that demand more effort, such as sending photos or videos or producing material for journalists, are used far less. Many read comments weekly or monthly, but only a small number write comments themselves. Even for the most popular option, a significant number of people rarely or never engage.
When the author compared the actual use of these options with their perceived importance, an interesting gap appeared. Many respondents do not use participatory features, yet they still say these features matter. People tend to value tools that help them express their views or follow others’ opinions, even if they do not use them themselves. Surveys and polls are rated as most important, followed by sharing articles and reading comments. High-involvement options such as sending topic suggestions or writing e-mails are also seen as fairly important, even though few people use them. The least important option is writing one’s own articles. Overall, people seem to value the idea of engagement more than the act itself.
Next, the author asked how people judge journalism’s efforts to engage its audience. Many respondents hold a neutral view, and a significant number say they cannot judge these aspects at all. People are more likely to agree that journalists allow the public to express opinions or discuss current topics with them. They are less convinced that journalists moderate discussions or build a sense of community with the public.
Finally, the author examined whether the perception of journalism as audience-oriented shapes trust. The results show a clear link: trust is higher among people who feel that journalism listens and engages. Age and political views also matter: older respondents tend to show lower trust, and supporters of some political parties express far more distrust. Media habits play a role too: those who follow traditional news show higher trust, while heavy users of social or alternative media tend to trust less. Showing an interest in dialogue and community-building can support trust. At the same time, outlets face the challenge of creating engagement opportunities that audiences will actually use.
Uth, B. (2025). Hardly Used, But Highly Appreciated? Use, Importance and Effects of Engagement-Oriented Journalism. Digital Journalism, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2025.2605489
Based on interviews with journalists, content producers, and former journalists in Austria, Uta Russmann, Sabine Einwiller, Jens Seiffert-Brockmann, Lina Stürmer, and Gisela Reiter produced an article in Journalism which found that the use of social media and the lack of financial and human resources in journalism are the main reasons for these blurring lines. This undermines journalistic independence, ethics, and public trust: areas where targeted funding and capacity-building can make a difference.
Since the rise of the Internet, journalism in Europe has faced a deep crisis. Long-held lines between journalism, PR, and advertising have become blurred, and at times seem to disappear. Traditional media business models have weakened, forcing news outlets to change how they work. Many now rely on advertorials, sponsored content, and other paid forms of communication. This has made news outlets less dependent on one source of income, but it has also pushed many journalists to move into PR or marketing. Austria reflects this wider trend. The number of full-time journalists fell sharply between 2007 and 2019, and many former journalists are now working entirely in PR or advertising.
This study explores how people in the profession view these blurred boundaries. In semi-structured interviews, the authors asked how journalists, hybrid journalists/content producers, and former journalists now working in PR or advertising understand journalism today. They also looked at the challenges they see in their daily work.
The paper places these views within the wider changes caused by digitalisation. New platforms, new formats, and economic pressures have transformed how media content is produced and shared. The overlap in skills demanded in journalism, PR, and marketing has grown. As a result, journalism is under pressure to protect its identity, values, and independence, while also adapting to fast-moving technological and market shifts.
The interviews showed that most respondents agree that the boundaries between journalism, PR, and advertising have become blurred. Many said these boundaries have almost disappeared and continue to fade, especially because of social media. Journalists and some former journalists viewed this trend very critically. They feel that economic pressure and limited resources have weakened the profession and also pointed to stronger influence from advertisers and the rise of media cooperations, where coverage forms part of a paid package. Some spoke of surreptitious advertising and the routine use of press releases. Former journalists now working in PR admitted that it is easy to place polished material in the media, but they also described this as ethically troubling. Several interviewees warned that trust in journalism may decline if these problems continue.
Others, especially journalists/content producers and some former journalists, had a more neutral or positive view. They argued that the blurred boundaries are simply a reality and cannot be reversed. They also noted that PR and advertising can offer well-prepared information with more time and resources, although this content lacks journalistic independence.
Social media plays a major role in these changes. Interviewees said it has increased the overlap between professions and created new pressures. Journalists now have to promote their own work online and master skills once associated with PR and marketing. As a result, the definition of journalism has become less clear. Many struggle to describe their own role, especially when working across different fields. The question of what journalism is, and who counts as a journalist, remains open.
The interviews showed that blurred boundaries between journalism, PR, and advertising are now normal. Digital change and media convergence have caused these fields to overlap, and interviewees believe this trend will continue. Journalism has lost much of its old identity. Although journalists stress the importance of keeping clear boundaries, in practice, the lines are becoming harder to protect. PR, advertisers, and influencers all play a growing role in shaping information, and journalists struggle to keep their work separate. At the same time, journalists now use tools and skills once linked to PR and marketing, such as SEO and audience tracking. They also produce content for platforms like TikTok to reach younger audiences. This helps them adapt, but it also reduces their autonomy.
These changes raise ethical concerns. When journalism, PR, and advertising look alike, audiences may not recognise content that serves commercial or political interests. This can weaken trust and limit the depth of information available. It can also create conflicts of interest when media rely on commercial revenue. Clear labelling of paid content and strong ethical standards are essential to protect trust.
Although journalism has never been fixed, the current shifts have wide consequences. The profession must define proper practices and protect independence, as trust in journalism is vital for public debate and democratic life.
Russmann, U., Einwiller, S., Seiffert-Brockmann, J., Stürmer, L., & Reiter, G. (2025). Journalism in times of blurring boundaries between journalism, PR and advertising. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251406152
In a research article published in Digital Journalism, Liisa Ovaska (Tampere University) investigates Finnish news users’ understandings of the role of audience data in journalism by employing folk theories as an analytical approach.
The rise of datafication, the process of turning human actions on digital platforms into data, has transformed journalism. Newsrooms now rely on audience analytics to understand readers’ habits, adjust headlines, and choose topics that attract more attention. This data-driven approach aims to stabilise finances through subscriptions and engagement rather than advertising. However, it also shifts journalism from serving citizens’ needs to catering to consumer interests, often mixing news with entertainment.
Journalism research has long focused on how news is produced, paying less attention to how audiences understand and evaluate journalism. However, what people expect from journalism reveals much about how they perceive its purpose. Studies show that audiences in different countries want journalists to inform, fact-check, and hold those in power to account. Some also wish for more positive and solution-oriented reporting that makes them “feel good.” Yet, audiences often think commercial pressures shape journalism too much, leading to lower-quality content.
The concept of “folk theories of journalism” helps explain these audience views. Folk theories are people’s everyday beliefs about what journalism is, what it should do, and how it operates. They are shaped by personal experiences, social discussions, and public debates about the media. People use these informal theories to decide how much they trust and engage with news. For example, some audiences believe journalists are biased or too influenced by commercial interests, while others still value their ethical role.
In today’s data-driven media environment, these folk theories extend to ideas about algorithms and data use in journalism. Since people constantly encounter datafied systems online, their understanding of how data and algorithms work, often seen as opaque and profit-driven, shapes how they interpret digital journalism. Studying these beliefs helps reveal how audiences make sense of datafied journalism and how this affects their trust and engagement with the news.
News plays an important role in the daily lives of all participants in the focus groups, helping them stay informed and take part in conversations or political decisions. However, when discussing audience data, participants did not see journalism as a special or different kind of data collector compared to other companies. Their understanding of how news outlets use user data originated from several sources: personal experience with data use online, conversations with others, public debate about data collection, media messages such as cookie notices, and their participation in this study. Through these research activities, they reflected more deeply on these issues, shaping what can be called “sensitised” folk theories: views formed and clarified through guided discussion.
Across all groups, participants agreed that news organisations collect and use user data mainly for commercial reasons. They saw little journalistic or societal purpose behind these practices. Data use was understood as a way to attract advertisers, generate profit, and increase traffic on news sites. Some even described readers as “products” sold to advertisers, accepting this as part of getting free online news.
Participants also linked data practices to a decline in content quality. They felt that algorithms and analytics encourage more click-driven, superficial, and entertainment-based reporting. Headline testing and personalised news were seen as tools to boost clicks rather than inform readers. While some accepted background data use for advertising, many worried that commercial pressures were shaping journalism too strongly, weakening its role in serving the public interest.
The limited knowledge of participants of how news organisations use data suggests these practices are not clearly explained to the public. While participants remained active news readers, their critical attitudes raise questions about whether such scepticism could eventually weaken trust or engagement. The findings highlight the need for greater transparency around data use in journalism.
Ovaska, L. (2025). ‘It’s All About Money’ – News Users’ Folk Theory of Audience Data Utilisation in Journalism. Digital Journalism, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2025.2567342
In a research article published in Journalism, Wilson Lowrey and Anna Grace Usery examine the adoption and adaptation of standards by local news collaborations and digital startups.
Local journalism is changing, with digital start-ups and news collaborations now creating new ways of working. These efforts often bring fresh standards that focus on ethics, quality, diversity, and community involvement. Such standards can be set by news outlets themselves, or by non-profits, research centres, or professional associations. They may consist of formal rules or more general principles, making them flexible and widely adopted. In a disrupted media field, standards help build trust, guide daily work, and give legitimacy to new players. Studying them reveals both their promise and their pitfalls.
Research into local journalism suggests several reasons why standards may be adopted in digital start-ups and news collaborations. Larger organisations often create more detailed standards because complexity makes it hard to predict outcomes, and flexible standards are easier to follow than strict rules. Collaborations with many members, each with their own aims, are especially likely to adopt broad guidelines that stress values such as ethics, diversity, or independence, rather than detailed instructions about operations. Younger outlets may not yet have many standards, while older ones could either have more specific rules tied to their mission or, because of complex connections with others, broader and less defined principles.
Outside groups such as civic organisations, associations, or research centres often influence these standards. Their guidelines tend to be abstract and focused on professional values rather than technical details. This means that collaborations with non-news members are less likely to adopt rules from news producers and more likely to follow general ethical or professional codes.
Business models also matter. Commercial outlets, under pressure to run efficiently, are more likely to stress operational rules. Non-profit outlets, by contrast, tend to focus on ideals like ethics and diversity and often have more standards overall, though they are less likely to demand strict compliance. Standards can also grow stronger when outlets focus on accountability journalism, since such work invites scrutiny and pushes organisations to show legitimacy through clear commitments.
To test these ideas, the study examined websites and published standards from a range of news collaborations and digital start-ups, including both non-profit and commercial outlets. These newer forms of journalism were chosen because they are most likely to look for legitimacy and support.
Most of the news sites studied had at least one set of standards, though some had more than one. These standards covered a wide range of themes, from ethics and diversity to community engagement and operational rules. Many outlets, especially non-profits, drew on outside organisations, such as professional associations or civic groups, for guidance. This shows how standards often spread beyond newsrooms and take shape in broader networks. Yet regrettably, many outlets treated standards more as symbols of legitimacy than as rules to be followed. In many cases, websites gave little sign of standards, or listed principles that were not clearly relevant to their specific mission.
When looking at the initial hypotheses, the results of the research were mixed. Larger news producers were not more likely to have extensive standards, nor did their standards focus more on abstract values, so both size-related predictions failed. The age of the outlet also showed no clear link with relevance of standards. The role of non-news partners proved weaker than expected: their presence did not increase the adoption of outside standards, nor did it push collaborations towards abstract principles.
Non-profit status mattered more. While non-profits were not necessarily more likely to frame their standards around broad principles, they were more likely to demand compliance and to have standards overall, especially when counting individual ones. Commercial outlets generally had fewer. The strongest and most consistent result was linked to accountability. Outlets that defined their mission around holding power to account had more standards, both in number and scope, and were far more likely to publish them.
This research showed that standards are easy to adopt and that they help newer organisations build legitimacy. Outlets that focused on accountability journalism were especially likely to adopt standards, perhaps because challenging the powerful invites criticism, making it important to show a public commitment to ethics and professionalism.
Outside organisations such as professional associations and networks appeared to shape the wider environment by offering sets of standards, but local outlets often adopted them loosely. Many principles were broad, not directly linked to the outlet’s mission or community. In fact, more than 40% of individual standards were judged not especially relevant to the producer’s local role, and on many sites, standards were either buried or not linked at all. This points to a degree of “decoupling,” where standards serve more as outward symbols than as tools for guiding daily practice.
The findings suggest that, while standards offer a useful framework, they risk becoming empty if not tied to the outlet’s own values and needs. Journalists and managers should think carefully about whether their standards reflect the priorities of their communities or mainly echo the agendas of outside organisations. For standards to strengthen trust, they must be meaningfully integrated into everyday reporting rather than left as vague, symbolic statements.
Lowrey, W., & Usery, A. G. (2025). The spread of news standards: Examining an emerging means for control and legitimacy in local journalism. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251362463
In an article published in the International Journal of Communication, Sebastian Sevignani, Hendrik Theine, and Mandy Tröger offer a new theoretical framework for analysing different forms of direct and indirect influence of Big Tech on news media by expanding the concept of media capture to media environment capture.
Powerful tech companies, especially US-based ones such as Meta and Google, are shaping journalism worldwide. They not only distribute news but also control the digital systems that decide what people see. This growing influence, which the authors call media environment capture, goes beyond ownership concentration: tech giants shape the entire information space. While researchers tend to focus on national cases or mix up different types of influence, this study suggests a broader way to understand how tech companies use both economic and technological power to shape journalism and public debate across countries and regions.
The idea of media capture originally described how governments influence media, despite laws protecting press freedom. This can happen through ownership, financial support, regulation, or corruption, usually leading to more positive coverage of the government. Over time, private companies and advertisers have also used similar tactics, buying media outlets or influencing content through advertising.
At the same time, with the rise of digital media, traditional media lost much of their advertising income to tech companies, leaving many outlets struggling financially and sometimes owned for political reasons instead of profit. Meanwhile, tech giants such as Google have become both funders of journalism and providers of essential tools which news outlets rely on, resulting in media environment capture.
To better understand the concept, the authors combine and apply interdisciplinary theories. They apply the theory of intellectual monopolisation, which focuses on the capabilities of digital conglomerates to absorb and claim knowledge, information, and data, influencing other industries including news media. They also borrow from critical state theory, offering conceptual clues as to how corporations influence media regulation. They also look at more recent theories of capitalism to understand how Big Tech harnesses the underpinnings of journalism.
Media environment capture explains how these tech giants create dependencies that make it hard for news organisations to function independently. On one hand, Big Tech provides funding to media outlets and journalism projects, sometimes to ease tensions with traditional media companies over advertising revenues. On the other, they also shape state media laws by spending millions on lobbying and supporting think tanks and research institutions, particularly in the European Union and the United States, which helps them steer debates on regulations and protect their business interests.
Furthermore, tech companies shape journalism practices through the platforms they provide, such as Facebook, through which they dominate news distribution and advertising. Through services like Google Analytics and Facebook Insights, tech companies control how media outlets understand and reach their audiences. Because so much news is consumed online, often through these platforms, journalists must adapt their content to fit algorithms and user data collected by Big Tech. This dependency forces them to adjust to the business models and distribution methods of tech giants, reducing their independence and changing journalism itself.
But news outlets also depend on Big Tech services and technologies to organise their daily work. Journalists use tools like Google Search, WhatsApp, and Teams for research and communication, while also relying on platforms like Facebook Instant Articles to share content.
The power of Big Tech comes from building large-scale hardware and software infrastructures and collecting vast amounts of user data, which they use to shape the digital public sphere. The concept of media capture, which focuses on ownership and financing, is no longer enough to explain their influence. Instead, the broader idea of media environment capture shows how their influence affects every part of news production and distribution.
As a result, media policies should be rethought by looking beyond single companies and instead considering how to reorganise the entire digital public sphere to protect independent journalism.
Sevignani, S., Theine, H., & Tröger, M. (2025). Unpacking Property: Media, Ownership, and Power in Transformation| Toward Media Environment Capture: A Theoretical Contribution on the Influence of Big Tech on News Media. International Journal of Communication, 19, 21. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/21987
In an article published in Journalism Studies, Alison McAdam outlines a multidimensional approach to sustainability that expands the primary economic focus by considering how the social, cultural, and political roles that local news outlets play in their communities shape it.
The term “sustainability” is widely used across various fields and has become central to discussions on the crisis facing local journalism. Research has documented the decline of local news through concepts like “news deserts” and “news blackholes,” with sustainability often invoked in relation to finding viable futures for the sector. Still, there is limited research defining what sustainability means in this context.
In local journalism, economic concerns remain central but are interlinked with social, cultural, political, geographic, and temporal dimensions. While economic considerations often dominate discussions, the approach of this study draws on cross-disciplinary and journalism-specific literature, highlighting the multiple roles local news plays in communities. The suggested framework argues that each dimension contributes to the long-term viability of local news, recognising endurance as a fundamental principle of sustainability.
Local media serve multiple functions: they foster community cohesion, act as cultural ambassadors, provide historical records, and hold local political powers accountable. These contribute to the unique connection between local news outlets and their audiences, underlining their importance in maintaining an informed community.
Sustainability is a complex concept with diverse definitions, ranging from a vision of the future to a social phenomenon. Traditionally, it focused on economic indicators such as profitability and financial viability, but more recent approaches emphasise material well-being, quality of life, and social equity. The “triple bottom line” framework integrates environmental, economic, and social dimensions, and time is considered a crucial factor in sustainability. However, journalism studies on sustainability have yet to fully incorporate these perspectives.
A multidimensional approach to sustainability in local news incorporates economic, social, cultural, political, geographic, and temporal dimensions. This framework draws from cross-disciplinary literature and highlights the importance of these factors in ensuring local news’ financial viability, legitimacy, and trust within communities.
The economic dimension of local news sustainability focuses on the production, distribution, and consumption of news. Media corporatisation and cost-cutting strategies have weakened local news, but non-profit outlets are also emerging, prioritising financial viability over growth. Business models focus on increasing audience revenue and diversifying commercial strategies. Some scholars argue that relationship-building and preserving the civic value of local news are essential for long-term sustainability.
The social dimension concentrates on the community’s demographics, the role of local news in connecting people, and on building social capital. Local news outlets embedded in the community can leverage this position to develop power, trust, and loyalty, fostering reciprocal relationships with audiences and advertisers. This social capital, along with a deep understanding of local knowledge, helps news outlets maintain relevance and become more sustainable.
The cultural dimension focuses on how media shape and maintain community values and identities. Local news outlets leverage cultural elements, such as producing alternative publications or archiving historical content, to generate revenue and reinforce their standing in the community. This cultural role helps solidify local news as an essential part of the community’s identity and history.
The political dimension examines the role of the media in supporting democracy and public participation. It highlights the importance of government support for local news, including funding or advertising. While government subsidies can enhance credibility, there may be concerns regarding political influence.
The geographic dimension focuses on the role of physical locations in shaping news outlets’ functions. It highlights how especially rural and remote communities can influence news production, audience relevance, and the dissemination of emergency information. Local sensibility and understanding geographic boundaries help news outlets gauge their reach and relevance, ensuring their viability and connection to audiences.
The temporal dimension highlights the importance of recognising both historical and current factors in sustaining local media. By focusing on past successes and enduring practices alongside modern challenges, this approach advocates for long-term solutions and acknowledges the value of what has stood the test of time amid changes in the landscape.
The concept of “sustainability” provides valuable insights into the challenges faced by local news media. Journalism studies must embrace the complexity of the term “sustainability,” drawing on the broader concept from other disciplines. The sustainability of local news should be viewed as multidimensional, demonstrated by its endurance over time. This nuanced approach can also benefit the communities served by local news outlets. By considering sustainability in a broader context, social equity factors emerge, ensuring equitable access to local news that connects citizens to their community, fosters engagement, and supports democratic processes.
McAdam, A. (2025). Rethinking “Sustainability” as a Multidimensional Conceptual Framework for Local Journalism Studies. Journalism Studies, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2025.2492738
A 2023 survey conducted in Austria with 1,000 participants investigated the relationship between media trust and consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for online news in the post-pandemic era. The results indicate a strong correlation between media trust and both WTP and actual media expenditure. This highlights the importance of trust in securing financial sustainability for media organisations. As free content dominates the digital landscape, media companies must rebuild trust to encourage consumers to pay for credible news.
The media industry faces various challenges due to digital disruption and declining trust. While scepticism toward the media is not new, the pandemic accelerated its decline. Trust in media is essential for democracy and economic stability, yet media institutions remain among the least trusted. Despite increased news consumption during the pandemic, trust did not improve. This decline in trust has affected financial sustainability, forcing media companies to shift from ad-based models to paid subscriptions. However, WTP for news remains low, stagnating at 17% globally and only 13.7% in Austria.
Media trust is a crucial factor in social interactions and economic behaviour. Trust in media means audiences believe the media will perform its role satisfactorily. Without trust, the media cannot serve its democratic function, however, it should not be unconditional and should be accompanied by critical media literacy. Trust also involves uncertainty and a leap of faith, as audiences cannot always verify news content. The digital age complicates trust with misinformation, fake news, and algorithm manipulation. Media organisations have also contributed to declining trust through poor reporting and inaccuracies. Since consumers cannot assess media quality before consumption, trust plays a key role in their decision to pay for content. Building trust requires a focus on journalistic integrity and media branding.
From an economic perspective, trust in media brands influences consumer decisions and financial support. Trusted brands create competitive advantages, increasing WTP. Prior studies show that consumers are more likely to pay for news from trusted sources. Economic theories suggest that consumer preferences determine the value of a good: when consumers trust a media brand, they perceive it as more valuable and are more willing to pay for its content. However, free alternatives on social media and financial constraints make it difficult for media companies to convince consumers to pay.
The sample for the online survey, conducted by the Austrian Gallup Institute in October 2023, consisted of 1,000 respondents aged 16 and older, representing Austria’s web-active population. The survey measured media usage, trust, perceptions of media performance, payment behaviours, WTP, and trust in political institutions. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to test hypotheses. Predictors included socio-demographics, media use, and political trust, with interaction terms to test moderation effects.
The results show that trust in media significantly influences WTP and media expenditure. Public service media were rated as the most trustworthy, with television and radio considered more credible than social media. Although media consumption is high, 25% of respondents avoid news, citing psychological stress and lack of trust. Trust in political institutions is low, with only 12% expressing high trust. There is a moderate correlation between media trust and WTP, indicating that trust influences payment behaviour. Political trust also correlates with WTP and media expenditure, suggesting that those with higher trust in political institutions are more likely to support paid news.
Regression analysis shows that higher education and larger households predict higher WTP, while older age, being female, and living in rural areas predict lower WTP. Media use is also a significant predictor, with frequent media users showing higher WTP. Political trust independently predicts WTP, and its interaction with media trust further strengthens this relationship. Media trust remains a significant predictor of WTP across models, though its effect weakens when political trust is considered. When media expenditure is analysed as the dependent variable, similar patterns emerge, though with lower explanatory power. Income significantly influences media expenditure, while media trust loses significance in complex models.
Trust in the media is important for both democratic and economic reasons. Trust enables informed citizenship and financial stability for media organisations. The survey results confirm that trust strongly predicts WTP and media expenditure. As the pandemic increased scepticism toward media due to misinformation and political biases, and social media has further weakened traditional media, trust has become even more critical for securing paid subscriptions. Consumers prioritise credible media brands, which influences their willingness to pay. Therefore, media organisations must focus on rebuilding trust and demonstrating the value of their content.
To restore trust, transparency is essential. Providing insight into journalistic processes can help regain credibility. Fact-checking, ethical reporting, and clear labelling of content can also enhance trust. Accountability is another key factor, requiring strict ethical standards and swift correction of inaccuracies. Engaging with audiences and considering their perspectives can strengthen trust and loyalty.
Beyond trust, understanding other factors influencing WTP is crucial for media sustainability. Socio-demographic factors play a role, highlighting the need for flexible pricing strategies such as micropayments. Regular news consumers tend to trust the media more and are more inclined to pay for content. Advanced data analytics and AI can help tailor content recommendations and increase engagement.
While quality journalism is important, media companies must also focus on branding and marketing. Consumers’ willingness to pay depends not only on content quality but also on brand perception. Strong media brands create competitive advantages, increase perceived value, and drive higher WTP. Marketing and psychology research emphasise the importance of brand trust, yet this remains an underexplored area in media studies.
Voci, D., Karmasin, M., Luef, S., Förster, S., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2024). Trust has a price?! Unraveling the dynamics between trust in the media and the willingness to pay in the post-pandemic scenario. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241311101
The rise of generative AI, particularly since the launch of ChatGPT in late 2022, has revolutionised journalism by making AI tools accessible to the general public, including journalists. However, it does not only reshape journalism workflows but also presents a critical opportunity for journalism funders to support innovation and ethical AI adoption, ensuring that newsrooms are equipped to navigate this transformation responsibly and effectively.
While earlier research focused on automated journalism, the mainstream adoption of generative AI has prompted fresh ethical debates and newsroom discussions about oversight and guidelines. However, many journalists have independently experimented with these tools, using them to simplify and enhance their work without compromising journalistic values.
Based on interviews with journalists in Singapore, an AI-forward global hub, generative AI has introduced a cultural shift, enabling journalists to adopt new technologies despite challenges like limited resources, ethical concerns, and structural misalignments. The findings propose a “value-motivated use” perspective, emphasising how AI can support good journalism without replacing its core principles. Journalists have a role as active participants in reshaping the field, offering insights for educators, scholars, and practitioners.
Journalists are increasingly integrating AI tools into their work, using them across various stages of news production. AI proves especially helpful in gathering information by suggesting potential answers, locating sources, and identifying trends. Tools such as ChatGPT allow journalists to quickly narrow down reliable information, which they verify through traditional methods like cross-checking with trusted sources. AI assists in generating interview questions and transcribing interviews, often improving accuracy over time through machine learning.
When it comes to writing and presenting news, journalists often use AI to create drafts of straightforward stories, based on press releases or weather announcements, among others, and to simplify or translate complex ideas. Applications like Hemingway Editor refine text by improving clarity and conciseness. AI also helps generate headlines and summaries tailored for online engagement, though journalists generally edit these outputs to ensure quality and alignment with their style. Beyond text, AI supports creating visuals and coding assistance, offering suggestions for graphics or blocks of code to speed up production. However, journalists maintain creative control, ensuring AI-generated content aligns with their editorial vision.
AI is also employed in editing by identifying gaps or biases in stories, helping reporters consider perspectives that might otherwise be overlooked, and checking facts. It streamlines grammar corrections and word count adjustments, although the final phase of editing is always done by humans. In news promotion, AI helps locate related articles for cross-promotion and generates social media captions, though these often require further human refinement to match professional standards.
While AI boosts efficiency and productivity, journalists remain cautious about its limitations. Many stress the importance of verifying AI output, as it can omit key information, hallucinate false facts, or present biased perspectives. The opacity of AI processes, such as the sources it relies on, adds to this scepticism. Journalists also voice concerns about ethical considerations, such as whether AI compromises their integrity when contributing to their work. They believe human oversight is crucial to maintain the core values of journalism, including truthfulness, accuracy, transparency, balance, and integrity. Without this oversight, there is a risk of spreading misinformation or perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
Despite these reservations, journalists recognise AI’s potential to enhance their work when used responsibly. They emphasise that AI should complement, not replace, human decision-making and creativity. Ultimately, journalists prioritise their professional values when deciding how to integrate AI into their workflows.
Wu, S. (2024). Journalists as individual users of artificial intelligence: Examining journalists’ “value-motivated use” of ChatGPT and other AI tools within and without the newsroom. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241303047
Local journalism faces significant challenges around the world, resulting in the decline of newspapers in various regions, often referred to as “news deserts.” These areas suffer from a lack of reliable news sources, resulting in diminished access to important information that citizens need to participate actively in their communities.
This trend is also alarming for journalism funders, as local journalism plays a critical role in maintaining a well-informed public. With fewer reporters covering city councils, school boards, and local events, citizens are left with limited information about issues affecting their lives. This lack of coverage can create a vacuum of knowledge, undermining democratic processes at the local level.
There are several factors contributing to the rise of news deserts. The digital age has brought about immense changes in how people consume news, with many turning to social media and online platforms for information. Traditional newspapers have struggled to adapt to this new environment, leading to declining subscriptions and advertising revenue. Furthermore, the consolidation of media ownership has resulted in fewer local voices and a focus on profit over community service. As large corporations buy up local papers, they often slash staff and resources, further weakening local journalism’s capacity to serve its community.
Depopulation is another significant factor. As younger generations move to urban centres seeking better opportunities, remaining populations often consist of older residents who may have different news consumption habits or limited access to digital media. This demographic shift creates a cycle where diminished local engagement leads to reduced journalistic coverage, which in turn accelerates depopulation, as residents feel less connected and informed about their communities.
The Castile-La Mancha region in Spain serves as an example of how depopulation can lead to news deserts, as it has seen significant population decline, and with it, the local media landscape has dramatically changed. Fewer people means less advertising revenue, which newspapers rely on, ultimately resulting in cuts to staff and resources. Like many areas suffering from similar trends, Castile-La Mancha faces a decline, not just in quantity, but also in the quality of news coverage.
Local media distribution mirrors the region’s polycentric demographic patterns, with outlets clustered in urban centres while rural zones remain underserved. Demographic indicators such as low population density, aging communities, and the absence of younger populations strongly correlate with the lack of media presence, while factors like business activity or income levels show limited influence.
Public services in depopulated areas, such as healthcare and education, remain relatively intact due to public efforts. However, media access heavily relies on private investment, as third-sector media remain underdeveloped. Future research should explore the potential of municipal broadcasters and public communication policies in these regions. Distance and territorial structure further exacerbate media absence, with logistical and administrative barriers isolating peripheral zones.
The complex relationship between depopulation and media absence suggests the need for further exploration, including how media might attract or retain populations. Local journalism’s ability to fulfil grassroots values is critical, alongside the role of civil society and social media in filling informational voids. Emphasising community resilience may offer new perspectives on addressing these challenges.
Saiz-Echezarreta, V., Galletero-Campos, B., & Arias Molinares, D. (2024). From news deserts to news resilience: Analysis of media in depopulated areas. Journalism, 25(12), 2641-2660. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231218818